Those who are attracted to a positive, progressive philosophy, unencumbered by the rigidity of traditional religions, embrace the vibrant lifestance of humanism, the radical idea that you can be good without a god. The Humanist Society bolsters humanism's rational philosophy by focusing on community and daily living.
Traditionally a god was anything one worshipped ,in the hope of reward and redemption.
Mother earth, the moon, the sky ,a tree, a totem and eventually gods incarnate and invisible to the masses.
A god could see one through harsh winters, save ones crops from failure etc.
As we can see with the ancient Egyptians, the great fear of death and it's finality was a great motivator in creating gods to reassure them of an after-life.
Many people still crave this and so turn to one of the many world religions for they all offer it as a major reason for their cults existence. The vast majority pay lips service and would put on a census; Catholic (eg) because it was the traditional religion (sect) of their forefathers.
As far as morality is concerned, we have daily proof that 'godliness' does not create goodness , no more than godlessness rejects it.
Everything you've included there defines a god, it seems to me, as a human creation with no independent existence or power. If that's so then you can see the importance of defining terms. Most, though not all, religious adherents would disagree and say that one major aspect of god is an existence and power independent of people. They'd use words like pre-existing, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent and good. But then, one might expect them to.
The problem is that if you restrict your definition to something so alien to believers, you're scarcely going to find any meaningful overlap of ideas in a conversation with them.
Maybe we could have several words to focus on a specific meaning of god, to allow precision?
You've commendably noted one of the main evils of monotheism. I bring to your attention, however, that there are a billion or so fervent bigoted practicing Christians and a billion or so fervent bigoted practicing Muslims across the planet, not to mention the odd Jew. Are we to discount them when it comes to evaluating godliness?
Since they cannot all be right some of them/all of them must be worshipping a false god.
That's no different from your own initial humanist position that all external gods are false gods, presumably.
In terms of discussing matters with any monotheistic believer then of course their starting point is that every monotheist outside of their own given dogmatic system is worshiping a false god. It doesn't dent their personal conviction that their own god is real, omnipotent, good &c &c, and this position will be true of all those monotheists.
I am, I take it, correct in thinking you reject the possibility of their being any such thing as a god with an independent existence?
And that you accept there are real things which people choose to worship, either explicit idols, or generalized notions like Nature, or glades where people retreat to pray because they think of them as holy places?
I'm aiming us toward a definition where we both accept, for the thread, that believing people imbue these things, just as they imbue their irrational and unfounded notion of an "independent god", with the capacity to change the behavior of the believer. Your humanist position is that they need not do this, but do you accept that this is what they actually do?